Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 05:02:47 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #489 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 3 Dec 92 Volume 15 : Issue 489 Today's Topics: DC-1 & landing in bad weather (2 msgs) Hubbles's mirror (good spin) Mars: "unusual" landforms, lat/long NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions (3 msgs) Patriot Missile physiology in zero-G Shuttle replacement (3 msgs) spacecamp Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) What is the SSTO enabling technology? Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 92 13:53:38 EST From: "ZALBAR DELPHI, MAIL::GOD" Subject: DC-1 & landing in bad weather ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 92 13:55:30 EST From: "ZALBAR DELPHI, MAIL::GOD" Subject: DC-1 & landing in bad weather I'm kinda curoius... What effect would a wind shear have on a taildown landing of a DC-1... How about cross winds... The whole things SOUNDS pretty workable... but if the DC-1 comes in on empty tanks (or nearly so), what if the craft has to divert to an alternate site... As George Carlin says, "The only unsceduled landing I'm afraid of is the one in the cornfield on the far side of the airport..." Which brings another point... Could (being realistic now) the DC-1 set down on ANY more or less flat surface, like a cornfield... Or would that result in a forest fire (er popcorn...). =============================================================================== Chris Sheldon C161A_30@cvax.DECnet C161A_30@cvax.ipfw.indiana.edu Zalbar Delphi, Mominium =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 16:21:38 GMT From: Pat Subject: Hubbles's mirror (good spin) Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article <1992Nov30.192406.7923@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> ssmith@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (G. Scott Smith) writes: >In article <1992Nov29.080102.21166@highland.oz.au> gregw@highland.oz.au (Greg Wilkins) writes: >> >>What are the chances that hubble would have flown if the flaw in the mirror >>was detected? >There exists a second mirror made by another contractor. The mirror would >have been replaced and the mission flown. >> >>If there was a chance that hubble would have been grounded, maybe it is >>better that it went up half blind (but fixable). The science learned from >>fixing it in orbit must also be worth something -> probably will save an >>extra flight practising for Fred. >If the problem had been found, it would have been fixed and the vehicle >flown. You don't spend several billion dollars and not fly the thing. >Making another mirror would be cheaper than canceling the program, even >if there wasn't another mirror already made. > Actually, i think they would have done what they are doing now. ordered hughes to fix the mirror and sue them for non-performance and charge them the extra program costs due to delays in launch. i heard right now they are looking to sue hughes for all the money they paid them for the main mirror. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 14:48:00 GMT From: "E. V. Bell, II - NSSDC/HSTX/GSFC/NASA - (301" Subject: Mars: "unusual" landforms, lat/long Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov28.164918.4269@memstvx1.memst.edu>, kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes... > >Anybody out there have the latitude and longitude coordinates of the >"unusual" Martian landforms which have been discussed in the popular >press in recent years? > >Specifically, I'm looking for the lambda and phi (Martian latitude >and longitude) coordinates of: > >The "Face" in Cydonia >and >The "Pyramids" in Elysium > >(I'm writing a novel that's partly set on Mars, and I'd really like >to know where these minor "tourist attractions" are.) > >Thanks in advance, >Ken Barnes > >-- >*.x,*dna************************************************************** >*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. * >* \' KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu * >*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,711@compuserve.com********************** >"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; >I'm beginning to believe it."--Clarence Darrow I was kind of curious about this myself (what with all of the discussion on the net) and was able to find a reference to the lat/long of the "face". The position given therein is 41N,9.5. I examined that particular region with the Mar Digital Image Model (MDIM) CD-ROMs which the Mars Observer project generated from the Viking 1/2 orbiter data (which we distribute for the Planetary Data System) and found the site to be particularly unexciting. (I'm pretty certain that I found the "face", but the resolution on the MDIM CD-ROMs appears to be less than ideal for seeing much "detail". I suspect that it might be better on the original images from Viking (which we also distribute), but have not had the time to explore those yet.) I don't know the lat/long of the "pyramids", but the Elysium region is around 10-30N,220-260. (Somewhere in there.) Hope this helps. +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II | E-mail: | | Mail Code 633.9 | (SPAN) NCF::Bell | | National Space Science | or NSSDC::Bell | | Data Center | or NSSDCA::Bell | | NASA | or NSSDCB::Bell | | Goddard Space Flight Center | (Internet) Bell@NSSDCA.GSFC.NASA.GOV | | Greenbelt, MD 20771 | | | (301) 513-1663 | | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 92 08:35:58 GMT From: Mark Sproul Subject: NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec1.195722.4304@memstvx1.memst.edu> (sci.space), kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes: > Ordinary firearms wouldn't work in a vacuum anyhow. > The gunpowder couldn't burn. The same might be true at high > altitudes on the Earth's surface, as I've heard that in a > particular South American city (I think it was La Paz, Bolivia), > there's not enough oxygen in the air for them to really require > a fire department. > > --KB > This is just NOT true. Modern firearms work in a vacuum and work underwater. The nitro-celulose that gun powder is made from contains its own oxygen for burning. Even older black powder will work without outside oxygen. When a high power rifle cartrige is set off, the chamber pressure is in the range of 50,000 PSI. If it required oxygen from the outside air to get in to burn, the oxygen just could not get in if it wanted to. The chamber is COMPLETLY sealed, or if it wasn't that high pressure would escape, injuring the shooter. Mark Sproul High Power Rifle Competitor Member of NJ State Rifle Team ----------------------------------------------------- Mark Sproul - KB2ICI - New Jersey sproul@sproul.com ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 92 05:00:47 GMT From: kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu Subject: NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions Newsgroups: sci.space In article , draper@ais.org (Patrick Draper) writes: > In article <1992Dec1.195722.4304@memstvx1.memst.edu> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes: >> >>Ordinary firearms wouldn't work in a vacuum anyhow. >>The gunpowder couldn't burn. The same might be true at high >>altitudes on the Earth's surface, as I've heard that in a >>particular South American city (I think it was La Paz, Bolivia), >>there's not enough oxygen in the air for them to really require >>a fire department. >> >>--KB >> > Of course ordinary firearms will work in a vacuum. > > [Brief elementary physics lesson deleted.] > > ------------------////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\------------------ > | Patrick Draper Disclaimer: I can't control my fingers, | > | draper@umcc.ais.org I can't control my toes! - Ramones | > | University of Michigan Computer Club | > NO CARRIER We are a nation of laws, not people | > ------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////------------------ Excuse me. Didn't mean to start a flame-fest on the nature of flame/explosions in a vacuum. I'll be more careful where I play with matches in the future. As for the part about the city at high altitude, please note that I didn't say that flames were not possible, it's just that they were said to propagate at such a slow rate that they are readily extinguished. Thanks for the correction. Have mercy. -- *.x,*dna************************************************************** *(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. * * \' KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu * *(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,711@compuserve.com********************** "If nobody said anything unless he knew what he was talking about, a ghastly hush would descend upon the earth."--Sir Alan Herbert ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 92 16:54:23 GMT From: Robert Mitchell Subject: NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec1.195722.4304@memstvx1.memst.edu> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes: .... >Ordinary firearms wouldn't work in a vacuum anyhow. >The gunpowder couldn't burn. The same might be true at high >altitudes on the Earth's surface, as I've heard that in a >particular South American city (I think it was La Paz, Bolivia), >there's not enough oxygen in the air for them to really require >a fire department. > >--KB > I do not really believe this; combustion starts in an air-tight cartrige. This causes the case to form an air tight seal in the chamber, and the slug to form an air tight seal in the barrel. Outside oxygen does not have much chance to participate. It would seem that any oxygen required for combustion would be part of the formulation. I would think that you would get a much higher muzzle velocity with no air to push down the barrel... - Robert Mitchell -- UUCP: rmm20@juts.ccc.amdahl.com DDD: 408-746-8491 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 205, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 BIX: bobmitchell ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 92 16:18:44 GMT From: Titch Subject: Patriot Missile Newsgroups: sci.space bweaver@swvgs.vak12ed.edu (Brian Weaver) writes: > What was completed previous to the Gulf War was a new > antiballistic version that had a new guidance system capable of > intercepting another missle in flight. Probably. :-) Rich. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rich Browning (rjb12@bton.unix) * The Intel Plentium: Ethernet controller Department of Computer Science * or fiendish knitting pattern? University of Brighton * What!? It's a PROCESSOR??? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 92 10:05:35 GMT From: Magnus Olsson Subject: physiology in zero-G Newsgroups: sci.space In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: > >>From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) >Newsgroups: sci.space >Date: 29 Nov 92 23:17:18 GMT >Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden > >-[General discourse on why it's a good idea to wear clothing while operating >-a blender or a circular saw.] John, if you're going to flame someone (albeit flippantly), you should at least observe the common courtesy of getting your attributions right, and not deliberately distort what people say. I hope I'm wriong, but I get the feeling that you're trying to make it seem as if I had written something highly inappropriate. If that is so, then *please tell us* what is inappropriate, and why, don't just imply it. For new readers: I don't know really *what* John is trying to imply that I meant, but somebody else had been speculating about the need for female astronauts to wear supportive clothing (bras or special jump suits) in zero-g, and I made a HHOS ("ha ha, only serious") comment that NASA probably had done speical research on this. >I presume you've read "Rendezvous with Rama". Yes, I have, several years ago. What has that got to do with it? >So - when is Sweden going to buy a Shuttle flight and make some of the >movies it's famous for, but in zero-G? And is your research the groundwork >for such an undertaking? :-) You know, we Swedes are getting sick and tired of hearing that kind of remarks, even with smilies attached. I can assure you that they have long since lost any relevance. Nowadays, they must be said to belong to the same kind of ethnic slurs as stories about sausage-eating, war-mongering Germans with scars and heavy Prussian accents. But it's of course very easy for you Americans - who, if one were to judge by American pop. culture, and the postings here on Usenet, seem to be the most sexually obsessed people on Earth - to have somebody to point your fingers at, isn't it? Sheesh. (Oops - I seem to have made an ethnic slur myself. Sorry for that - please note the wording "if one were to judge by ... seem", and that I certainly don't mean *all* Americans) Magnus Olsson | \e+ /_ Department of Theoretical Physics | \ Z / q University of Lund, Sweden | >----< magnus@thep.lu.se, thepmo@seldc52.bitnet | / \===== g PGP key available via finger or on request | /e- \q ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 12:27:44 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space In article prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > >the three year hiatus was vital for fixing numerous problems, many of which could have led to total loss of the shuttle. now if this were an >experimental test program, you push on. The X-15 was losing aircraft/space >craft. they were killing pilots, they were having major problems, but it was an experimental research program. >losing a shuttle with the HST would have been an unmitigated disaster. >losing the CGRO would have been a disiaster. lsoing galileo would have >been a major problem. Cargo carrying, crewed semi-operational >vehicles would have been a major problem....... Yes, the real crime was treating Shuttle as an operational system after so few flights. No commercial aircraft would be certified operational after so few takeoffs and landings. Shuttle is still significantly more risky than any operational aircraft, yet we fly it now. My point is that the incremental risk for flying it with some of the potential problems unfixed may not have been that much higher than the risks it endures now, after the fixes. >Gary i think you should study under what conditions risk is applied, >before you grandly declare it was a risk averse america. >Remember, we ground entire airline fleets and military birds when >problems are detected and fixes are applied. the AH-64 spent half its >life until 1988 grounded for one problem or another. the F-14s spent >months flying under restricted conditions because they kept stalling >and falling into the water. the DC-10 spent months grounded after >chicago. they forced groundings of 747s pening emergency inspections >of cargo hatches after the UAL problem..... operational aircraft are >always restricited until they know and understand the problem. we dont >want anymore comets. This is all true too. But *when necessary* military aircraft do fly without the fixes. The losses are accepted as part of the cost of getting the mission done. Shuttle grounding, at a time of Titan troubles put national security at risk. I think we were down to our last KH-12. A lot of money was spent, and a lot of time was used to fix numerous *potential* problems as well as the proximate problem. The question is whether these potential risks were sufficient to offset the costs to the missions of the delays incurred. Normally when an aircraft is grounded, there are alternatives available so that the mission can continue. At the time of the Shuttle grounding, there was no alternative for many payloads. There still isn't in some cases. One failure seems insufficient to cause a total halt in space launches when the previous record was 100% successes. Being risk averse isn't bad, but being too risk averse can be. There's such a thing as carrying zero failure tolerance too far. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 92 16:35:47 GMT From: "Michael V. Kent" Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec2.115526.22737@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > >What's the height/width of the projected DC? What I'm asking is how >stable is this thing on just wheels? Would a bracing structure be >helpful or required when moving it over ordinary rough concrete surfaces? From the SSTO fact sheet I picked up at the Northeast Space Developemnt Conference: DC-X DC-Y ---- ---- Empty Weight: 22,760 lb 104,100 lb Gross Liftoff Weight: 41,630 lb 1,279,000 lb Vehicle Height: 39 ft 127 ft Width at Base*: 11 ft 40 ft * My estimates based on the listed height and drawings of both vehicles. There is no guarrantee that the drawings are to scale. Mike -- Michael Kent kentm@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute "Interviewing during a recession is a lot like faking an orgasm. You have to pretend you're interested all the while getting badly screwed." - Anonymous Tute-Screwed Aero, Class of '92 Apple II Forever! ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 92 17:30:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec2.135821.16400@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes... >In article strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes: > >In ten years of operation this is the first year where Shuttle has gotten >even close to projected flight rates. > So than now as the system has matured and the probabiltiy of launching when they say they will has been reached, you want to kill the system. Also the cost reductions that are now being implemented that will reduce further the cost of launch you want to throw away. Makes a lot of sense Allan >>However, if something DOES go wrong, or for some reason you want a >>person on sight, then the shuttle wins. > >Maybe even not then. It depends on the cost of failure. > The cost of failure for communications satellites is not simply measured by the cost of the hardware and launch vehicle. Intelsat was willing to pay the big bucks to NASA to retrieve I VI because it would take over two years longer to build a new sat and get it in the air. During that time they would lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Therefore Allan old boy please add the cost of the loss of revenue, both in actual dollars lost as well as the permanent loss in market share to other satellite vendors. >>For something like Hubble, or >>some other unique satellites, I'd prefer the Shuttle. > >One reason Hubble is unique is that Shuttle eats almost a third of >NASA's budget. I hope you consider this when measuring Shuttle utility. > Got any idea what you mean by this remark? You sure as heck could not have gotten HST up to that altitude with anthing less than NLS II or Shuttle >If YOU where paying for Hubble, which would you pick? > I would pay the trucking company that could get it to the orbit that I want. >> Allen, they haven't made a profit in 6 years (since Challanger). > >Largely because they are forced to compete with government subsidized >competition. > No Allan if you remember no commercial sats are going up on the Shuttle. Where is this government competition? The reason is that MacDac offered a ver low price to uncle air force that is below manufacturing costs. Then to recover a profit they added a clause that if the first 18 flights of GPS (which is a government contract that MacDac follows you magic formula) are successful MacDac gets a col 72 million. Well they have almost made it. the first 17 have made it to orbit, but MacDac chickened out. They negotiated for a lesser amount for 12 successful launches. Made much less money than they would have. No guts no glory I guess. From the info I have the Delta II line would shut down without the government that you detest so much not paying for GPS on a regular basis. >The point still remains that the commercial providers are REDUCING the >cost of access to space; Shuttle increases it. Commercial launchers spend >investors money, Shuttle spends MY money. Given a choice between a cheaper >option which costs me nothing and a more expensive one I need to pay for >I would pick the former. How about you? No as I have just pointed out, any of the American launchers including the Delta II, Atlas II, and Titan III, IV and V, depend on the government dole. If that market went away we would have a lot of rusting machinery that used to be called rockets. > >>>But what would have happened if we developed a commercial based infrastructure >>>back in 1980? Much furthur I'll bet. > >>Let's argue today, not the past. > >One thing we need to do to make progress is understand the mistakes of >the past and then have the courage to correct them. > What we need to understand is that this whole industry is still in an infantile stage that REQUIRES the input of government funds to survive. It is all of our hopes that the money spent can be used to fund the developemnt of truly low cost access to space, of which the DC series is one end of the spectrum. You have not even addressed the other end, the HLV end of the spectrum. IT too will depend on the influx of government cash until we develop a commercial space industry, either in products or raw materials. Communications is making a good first stab at the former market, we need to return to the moon to foster the second, and in the end, far larger market. Ad Luna, Per Ardua Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 14:35:00 GMT From: M22079@mwvm.mitre.org Subject: spacecamp Newsgroups: sci.space Would someone please Email me the standard stuff on the Astronaut Camp in FL. Thanks, Karl (KPITT@MITRE.ORG) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 12:11:10 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) Newsgroups: sci.space In article prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > >Now i know this would make gary coffman happy, no more blazing balls of >ROCKET FUEL crashing into DISNEYLAND!!!!!! so maybe we should compromise >system design, throw away the manueverability to SHUT UP GARY. Chutes add mass for the chute, suspension, and hard points. They aren't cheap. And they aren't 100% reliable (but then what is?). To shut me up, all you need to do is agree to launch and land this thing away from major population centers. It's not an airliner, and it likely can never be an airliner. If it's a cheap launcher that ocasionally crashes or goes boom in an uninhabited spot, that's good enough for me. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 15:12:42 GMT From: Brad Whitehurst Subject: What is the SSTO enabling technology? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec1.231349.23837@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1DEC199213452356@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: > >>>According to the assessment of SSX done by the Aerospace Corporation, it >>>is now possible dur to slight improvements in the specific impulse of >>>engines and some new lighter materials. > >>You might want to back off the ISP statment there Allan. > >Well it wasn't *MY* statement, it was the Aerospace Corporation. > >>You can't beat the ISP of the SSME > >The RL-10-a4 is just as good as the SSME. the RL-10C1 (if built) will have >about 15 seconds higher ISP than the SSME. > >>and even if you get close you are going to have heap >>big problems keeping any kind of reusablility of the engines. > >RL-10s seem to do just fine. > But are they reused? Also, I don't know specifics of the SSME per se, but one of our labs did the spectral vibration analysis of the data tapes from SSME turbopump tests years ago, when they were exploding with distressing regularity. I'd guess the pumps are always going to be a weak link, especially when you are trying for high performance/low weight (a la spacecraft, F1 racers, etc.). Rotating equipment is always tricky at the margins! BTW, does anyone know if the SSME turbopumps are supercritical rotors? If so, how many criticals do they go through? -- Brad Whitehurst | Aerospace Research Lab rbw3q@Virginia.EDU | We like it hot...and fast. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 489 ------------------------------